With a background in economics and public policy, I've covered domestic and international energy issues since 1998. I'm the editor-in-chief for Public Utilities Fortnightly, which is a paid subscription-based magazine that was established in 1929. My column, which also appears in the CSMonitor, has twice been named Best Online Column by two different media organizations. Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein. Email: ken@silversteineditorial.com

New Data Shows Carbon Emissions Falling As Shale Gas Debate Is Rising

Debate rages as to whether natural gas is facilitating or blocking the path to a cleaner energy future. The answer, of course, depends on whom is asked and what variables that they are using to arrive at their conclusions. Heat-trapping emissions are falling. But why, and how does natural gas figure into this?

Natural Gas Production in the World -2009 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By all accounts, the level of carbon dioxide emissions is declining in the United States, namely because of the transition from coal to natural gas used for electric generation as well as the fact that economic output here has suffered since the Great Recession of 2008. Meantime, warmer winters have also helped. But the switch from coal-to-gas is not without its critics, especially those who say that the shale-gas boom is preventing the escalation of much cleaner fuels such as wind, solar and even nuclear energy.

“The gas industry should support innovation beyond natural gas to include support for innovation in renewables, nuclear and other environmentally important technologies,” says Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute. “Getting our energy from a diversity of sources is in the national interest and gas will thrive for a long time regardless of the energy mix. Moreover, until we have cheap utility scale storage, renewables need cheap gas for backup.”

The data released Monday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration indicates that carbon-related emissions dropped by 3.8 percent from 2011 to 2012 while gross domestic product product increased by 2.8 percent during that time. Those releases are at their lowest levels since 1994 and 12 percent less than the 2007 peak, the agency says. It specifically credits the increase in natural-gas fired generation.

Natural gas’ fortunes are the result of relatively new technologies that have been able to unlock the shale gas that is held in rock formations a mile beneath the earth’s surface. That increased supply has reduced those prices to around $3.50 per million Btus, which makes it competitive with coal. At the same time, natural gas releases about half the emissions that fall under the domain of the Clean Air Act, which now include carbon dioxide.

But those inexpensive deposits coupled with the relative ease of building new gas plants has come at a price — the foregoing of other fuels. In essence, natural gas has become a default option, which not only jeopardizes portfolio diversity but also potentially squeezes out newer and better technologies. Coal plants have become the primary targets. But nuclear facilities are also prey.

Take coal: Southern Company is shedding 15 coal and oil facilities, helping to reduce its coal mix from 70 percent five years ago to 47 percent. Meantime, Duke Energy is shuttering a half-dozen coal-based electricity by 2015. It will spend $9 billion to upgrade its generation fleet, which involves mostly the construction of natural gas units.

MidAmerican Energy, a unit of Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway, is also nixing five coal-burning facilities by 2016 in Iowa while American Electric Power is closing three coal-fired power plants in Ohio.

Nuclear energy, meanwhile, is highly sensitive to natural gas prices and has taken some high-profile hits as a result: Despite renewing its license two years ago, Entergy Corp. is ditching its Vermont Yankee facility because it has been unable to compete with cheaper gas-fired units. It has been preceded by Dominion Resources Kewaunee Nuclear Plant in Wisconsin, which also chose to fold for the same reason.

But the shale gas bonanza is also affecting renewable energy development. A new study released by Stanford University that aggregated the work of 50 experts who used 14 different sets of assumptions concludes such dynamics are not necessarily healthy for the climate. Beside cutting into the would-be market share of wind and solar, inexpensive natural gas will also diminish efforts to curtail energy usage.

“Natural gas has lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at the burner-tip than coal and oil,” says the Stanford study. “This substitution will decrease total downstream emissions but other factors caused by more available natural gas may offset it. These effects include higher GDP, more energy use and the displacement of sources with fewer emissions like renewable and nuclear energy.”

Asking ‘what if’ is less helpful than indulging in ‘what is:’ The simple fact is that the United States is undergoing a natural gas revolution that is disrupting how the nation does business. Newfound access to natural gas coupled with affordable prices is giving heavy industry a leg up while it is also cutting into carbon dioxide emission levels.

As the Breakthrough’s Shellenberger says, we should not limit the aspirations of those who want access to electricity. But he cautions that the current tools will one day give way to those that are more progressive.

Embracing technological change is therefore critical. And today’s new thing is shale gas, although with continued research and development, other fuels will eventually take its place.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Beside cutting into the would-be market share of wind and solar, inexpensive natural gas will also diminish efforts to curtail energy usage.

“Natural gas has lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides at the burner-tip than coal and oil,” says the Stanford study. “This substitution will decrease total downstream emissions but other factors caused by more available natural gas may offset it. These effects include higher GDP, more energy use and the displacement of sources with fewer emissions like renewable and nuclear energy.”

So the end game here is really not as much about using cleaner fuels and energy to help the environment as it is slowing growth and GDP? Sounds much more like politics and collectivism than true environmental awareness.

Ken—-natural gas is only a by product of frantic speculative drilling for liquid petroleum.

There is no economic or logical reason for the rush to drill and frack for natural gas. The natural gas is only an annoying by product. If it is convenient to sell it, then they will sell it, even at a rock bottom price to finance more drilling. If it is not convenient to sell it—-it will be flared off.

To confirm this, all you need to do is look at a night picture from a satellite or take a night time drive of areas where drilling is concentrated.

This might be good, or it might be bad. It is not a bad thing to be changing our energy system to a large portion of our energy needs to natural gas. Methane, CH4 is both a fossil fuel and biofuel. We can make it low tech, inexpensively and from almost any kind of waste organic material at all, even directly from CO2.

It however, could be bad if we ignore our other options and place all of our eggs in just one basket.